Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 15:33:10 10/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2001 at 17:59:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 03, 2001 at 16:51:49, Torstein Hall wrote: > >>On October 03, 2001 at 16:10:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 03, 2001 at 16:02:26, Torstein Hall wrote: >>> >>>>What if you run two paralelle search/chess processes. One going very fast with >>>>very little evaluation. The other going slow, with a big evaluation. The fast >>>>one always start searching on the move calculated by the slow process with the >>>>big evaluation, just checking for big materiall loss, tactical stupidities >>>>further down the tree. If it find one, the fast process sends a message goes >>>>back to the slow process and tells it do start work on the next best move. >>>> >>>>Then you perhaps can have the best from two "worlds". Intelligent search, with >>>>no tactical blunders! >>>> >>>>Torstein >>> >>> >>>Read Jonathan Schaeffer's reports on "Sun Phoenix". He did exactly that. >>>But he did it because he was not getting a very good distributed speedup >>>on larger numbers of processors. So some did a normal chess search together >>>as a group, the rest ran a tactical searcher called "minix". Minix was used >>>to refute moves chosen by the positional program. >>> >>>The problem is trying to rationalize the knowledgeable search vs the tactical >>>search. If the tactical search says your positional move loses material, what >>>do you do? Propose another move? And if _that_ loses material? The search >>>becomes hugely inefficient... >> >>If the tactical search says you lose material, of course you have to change the >>next best move, and so on. But that limit can perhaps be even more than a pawn? >>And of course if all the first moves in your oredering are very bad, it do not >>matter that much if you are not very effective. You are probably already >>loosing! >> >>Anyway, its another approach, and I find the consept intriguing. >>Can I find Jonathan Schaffer's report on Sun Phoenix on the net somewhere? >> >>Torstein > >I totally dislike the idea of using fast searchers for tactics. > >I believe that in theory a fast searcher should be worse in tactics because it >has no idea which lines to prune or extend and has no idea about the right order >of moves. > >It is possible to get more nodes per second by not using null move or extensions >and not calculating order of moves but the program is certainly going to have a >bigger branching factor and it is going to be weaker in tactics. > >My example is an extreme example but I believe that if you want an engine to be >better in tactics then doing it slower in nodes per second may be a good idea. > >Uri I for one do not have the time or ability to build a chess program, so I can not argue about, what teqnique to get deepest first. But the whole idea was to have a fast tactical deep searcher to correct a slow, big "evaluator". Torstein
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.